7 . Learned Amicus Curiae Shri Amitabh Acharya and learned counsel Shri Kaushal Gautam representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that even if the allegations set out in the prosecution case are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the offence attributed to the accused cannot travel beyond Section 323 IPC or at best, Section 304 Part II IPC. They submitted that admittedly the incident took place after a sudden quarrel in the heat of the moment without any provocation. The accused and the deceased were closely related to each other. They quarreled over a trivial issue of selling the farm produce. In this process, in the heat of the commotion, the accused picked up the rake, which is an agricultural equipment, lying at the spot and gave a single blow thereof on the head of the deceased. The blow was not given with any significant force because the external injury noticed by the doctor on the skull of the deceased was having very small dimensions of 2 cm. X 0.5 cm. and was skin deep. As per learned defence counsel, it seems that the deceased fell down at some other place after the incident and the haematoma was formed as a result of the fall. Thus, it was the contention of the learned defence counsel that the death of Shri Satnam Singh was not the direct outcome of the injury attributed to the accused appellant. On these grounds, they urged that the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside and the offence attributed to the accused should be toned down to one under Section 323 IPC or at best 304 Part II IPC with suitable reduction in sentence.
